Contending for Life: Abortion in the Work and Witness of the Early Church

A timely article by Nathan Tarr published in the 2021 Haddington House Journal.

Extracts:

The regularity with which abortion is given a place in our national conversation means that Christians are regularly required to articulate both what we believe, and why. Thankfully, we are not left without either biblical teaching or historical precedent as we cultivate a response that holistically addresses the exigencies of such a complex issue. In defining and defending Christian moral values, the early church drew on the biblical conviction that, from the moment of conception, unborn children are created by God in his image. This theological foundation calls the church, as an ethical corollary, to welcome the unborn as a neighbour, even preferring them above ourselves, rather than to destroy them as an enemy. Significantly, in contending for this culture of life, the mother is not asked to bear this cost alone. Rather, both mother and child are to be welcomed, served, and protected by the Christian community. Such service includes extending grace and forgiveness to facilitate healing and restore fellowship even after grievous sin….

The Christian rejection of abortion differed fundamentally from that of their pagan neighbors because they carried the personhood of the unborn child always in view. The grid of implications through which their culture considered the practice of abortion –– the power of the father, the population of the empire, or even the safety of the mother undergoing the procedure –– were, for believers, secondary considerations. The primary conviction motivating the Christian stand for life was that the unborn child was a human being, created by God, and therefore was included under the divine commands against murder and for the love of neighbour….

This balance of truth –– abortion is murder –– and love –– the blood of Jesus cleanses us from sin –– is captured in an ancient prayer that is still used today in the Eastern Orthodox church. It provides a good summary of the early church’s work to contend for the life both of the unborn and those who sin against them: “Lord our God…according to your great mercy, have mercy upon [name], who today is in sin, having fallen into voluntary or involuntary murder, and has aborted that conceived in her; and be gracious unto her willing and unwilling iniquities, and preserve her from every diabolical wile, cleanse her defilement and heal her suffering.”

The primary conviction motivating the Christian stand for life was that the unborn child was a human being, created by God, and therefore was included under the divine commands against murder and for the love of neighbour….

Nathan Tarr

An article by Nathan Tarr published in the 2021 Haddington House Journal.

J. V. Fesko’s Reforming Apologetics: A Review by James N. Anderson

From the Analogical Thoughts blog of James N. Anderson, a review of J. V. Fesko’s Reforming Apologetics.

Anderson writes, here:

So the debate isn’t about whether we should make use of natural revelation, but rather how we do so. Van Til, following Calvin, only insists that the two books of divine revelation be read in conjunction, as they were always intended by their Author to be read. When it comes to apologetics, the Christian faith must be defended “as a unit”; that is, as an integrated, coherent, self-interpreting “system of truth” that coordinates general and special revelation. For this reason, Van Til criticized forms of natural theology that attempted to interpret natural revelation in isolation from biblical revelation, on the basis of a ‘neutral’ epistemology (whether rationalist, empiricist, or some hybrid of the two).

James N. Anderson

Theological Education in the Era of Covid-19

Dear Friends,

I want to share a blog post with you that has blessed me in the current context of Covid-19 and theological training. It was written by Dr Graham Cheesman of Belfast, Northern Ireland on his Teaching Theology blog site.

Theological educators have been reminded over the last 13 months that the mode of delivery may change, but, as Dr. Graham Cheesman has written, “what we are delivering needs to be preserved.” The Lord we serve and declare does not change!

newpicself.jpg (900×1266)
Dr. Graham Cheesman

You can access Dr. Cheesman’s post here.

Please continue to pray for theological training and education at this time. Many strains and stresses have been added, but we serve a faithful, unchanging, and glorious God. “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” Hebrews 13: 8.

Jack Whytock, Director